And of course you should charge for a low approach or T&G (when an airport would charge for a full stop circuit). You are using the circuit. How is that so different from landing as far as resource usage goes?
And a practice approach should also be charged in my view if you are blocking the approach for IFR that may be using it for real. That is what really annoys me at Gloucester - you can fly in from France, wanting the GPS approach and you can't get it as 400 schools are doing practice approaches.
Of course, if you are given a straight in approach and choose to fly the GPS or ILS that isn't getting in anyone's way. But I wouldn't announce it.
So back to EDTY, really nice airport, great hotel, very pretty town. Highly recommended.
Apparently the only situation you are allowed to go below 500AGL is for landing and takeoff and a low approach is neither.
What if you intend to land, but decide to go-around from 3 feet? Or once you pass 500 AGL you have to land 
OK I can understand what's happened.
Very funny about that airline
I recall hearing a story from a former bizjet pilot who used to fly to Heathrow regularly, and to avoid the slots he used to file for Biggin Hill and divert. Apparently it worked for years, every time. I think he was probably telling the truth although obviously one can never be 100% sure. It does ring true. Nowadays there is an incentive to divert to avoid the silly Customs stop when exiting Schengen.
There are some airports however who found out that flying schools and people doing checkrides can save a lot of money by always doing low approaches only and therefore now charge a full landing fee for every low approach
Some UK airports charge for a touch and go (and presumably a low go-around too). They get severely criticised for this in the UK pilot sites but they do it because schools at other airports go there for training - exactly as in your example. My base, Shoreham, charges for a T&G, but they don't charge if there is an operational reason for it e.g. a runway incursion.
However, I was told that low approaches are not legal and I was actually denied one in Stuttgart for that reason...
OOOPS? I'm doing countless IFR training flights every year with even more countless instrument approaches, 80 percent of which end with a low approach (and much below 500ft, one of our checkers on the Citation loves low approaches down to ground effect - there's a story that many years ago he touched the runway with a wingtip during one of those). Including the occasional one at Stuttgart... There are some airports however who found out that flying schools and people doing checkrides can save a lot of money by always doing low approaches only and therefore now charge a full landing fee for every low approach. Like EDSB (Karlsruhe Baden-Baden) for example.
And obviously he told them what he did, otherwise they coudn't have known that he was flying the procedure.
Yeah, next time I will not tell them anything until close and then ask for a simple "straight in low approach".
However, I was told that low approaches are not legal and I was actually denied one in Stuttgart for that reason -- they told me to go around before reaching 500 AGL. Apparently the only situation you are allowed to go below 500AGL is for landing and takeoff and a low approach is neither.
Otherwise, there would be endless arguments about whether the IAP was needed, and there will be one operator who does need it and another who doesn't - for the particular vis/cloudbase scenario.
Back in the days when I started flying commercially, I occasionally freelanced for an operator who did scheduled (kind of at least) flights with Cessna 404s to the then newly opened East German airports. He paid us a bonus for flying VFR departures and approaches because that saved him the IFR fees. The practical way to do it was to depart VFR on a Z flightplan (in every weather of course) and do an IFR pickup at the shortest distance possible - then it was 5 NM after takeoff. Then continue IFR until shortly before becoming established on the ILS and cancel IFR before the actual approach began. There was a (now defunct) airline who operated like that with a fleet of Do228 turboprops until a few years ago doing scheduled flights between German airports and never ever paying instrument fees!
But to charge for flying VFR in the vicinity is completely totally world gone mad.
But they don't do that! As I understand it now, they charged Achim for flying their instrument approaches, even if he was not on an IFR flight plan. And obviously he told them what he did, otherwise they coudn't have known that he was flying the procedure.
But to charge for flying VFR in the vicinity is completely totally world gone mad.
Well, I was VFR but testing my ILS/LPV equipment, this is why they charged me.
Otherwise, there would be endless arguments about whether the IAP was needed, and there will be one operator who does need it and another who doesn't - for the particular vis/cloudbase scenario.
In EDMS Straubing, they only charge you if you actually fly the IAP. What I usually do is cancel IFR before starting the approach, that saves me a few miles and the instrument approach fee. I bet it is the same in EDTY Schwäbisch Hall but I was following the IAP, just simulated under VFR.
EDTY is still one of the best run GA airports in Europe so I'm not complaining, they can have the 10 €.
I would think that an airport that charges for an IAP is going to charge regardless of wx conditions.
Otherwise, there would be endless arguments about whether the IAP was needed, and there will be one operator who does need it and another who doesn't - for the particular vis/cloudbase scenario.
But to charge for flying VFR in the vicinity is completely totally world gone mad.
They might have thought that some pilots was actually flying the IAP, when claiming to be flying a long final VFR. To charge for that is still completely mad, because it means nobody is allowed to land VFR with a 3 degree final approach.
But after doing some trivial maths, they found out that they will not be able to ever recover the cost involved.
Surely that is true for almost any GA airport. Here in the UK for example, the survey and approval cost for a GPS/RNAV IAP is reportedly c. 20k-30k. That is a few k IFR landings which will probably take a few years to recover - especially as a load of people are going to use it but claim to be arriving VFR so you can't charge them for it. But anyway in the UK you can't have any IAP without full ATC and that costs a few hundred k a year just for daylight hours, which is why GPS approaches are going almost nowhere in the UK.
I wondered, because on my SEP "2-yearly with an instructor" hour a couple of months ago, did an ILS simulated and got charged... it was only a few Euros... did make me wonder, because in the UK I only ever got charged when IFR
Some do, some don't. As Achim says, flying a simulated ILS in Stuttgart will cost you nothing (apart of the approach and landing fees that you will be charged anyway, VFR or IFR...), at other places they charge for it. The only way to know for sure is to do it the UK way and call them on the phone in advance.
Even for LPV last time which doesn't require any ground equipment.
Not really, because every instrument approach procedure requires an approach light system (or otherwise the minima will be so bad that it isn't worth installing). And it needs to be certified in the first place (which will cost anything up to 50.000 Euros) and then calibrated/test flown every five years (an ILS every year). The calibration flight for one approach procedure costs between 10.000 and 15.000 Euros. Divide all that money by the number of approaches flown during that time and you will find that your ten Euros are still a bargain. My frequent destination EDAB has an official GPS procedure in one direction. They were contemplating the idea of getting one certified for the opposite direction as well. But after doing some trivial maths, they found out that they will not be able to ever recover the cost involved.
